Hon-Lam Li – författare

The topic of banning mandatory retirement has sparked debate as ageing populations transform societies. Comparing ageism to sexism and racism, this book addresses the philosophical concerns of age discrimination as well as the ethical and social considerations of personal dignity, economic efficiency, and employment insecurity.This edited volume fosters theoretical discourse by drawing on interdisciplinary conceptual frameworks from philosophy, ethics, economics, social work, and law. Distinguished contributors-including philosophers, bioethicists, social scientists, and legal experts-critically examine Lazear's influential theory of mandatory retirement. They also develop compelling comparisons between mandatory retirement policies and the Victorian Factory Acts and analyze how prohibiting mandatory retirement could substantially benefit workers in mainland China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR).This title is essential reading for scholars and students of practical ethics, bioethics, public policy, labour and public economics, social work, and employment law.

The topic of banning mandatory retirement has sparked debate as ageing populations transform societies. Comparing ageism to sexism and racism, this book addresses the philosophical concerns of age discrimination as well as the ethical and social considerations of personal dignity, economic efficiency, and employment insecurity.This edited volume fosters theoretical discourse by drawing on interdisciplinary conceptual frameworks from philosophy, ethics, economics, social work, and law. Distinguished contributors-including philosophers, bioethicists, social scientists, and legal experts-critically examine Lazear's influential theory of mandatory retirement. They also develop compelling comparisons between mandatory retirement policies and the Victorian Factory Acts and analyze how prohibiting mandatory retirement could substantially benefit workers in mainland China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR).This title is essential reading for scholars and students of practical ethics, bioethics, public policy, labour and public economics, social work, and employment law.

The topic of banning mandatory retirement has sparked debate as ageing populations transform societies. Comparing ageism to sexism and racism, this book addresses the philosophical concerns of age discrimination as well as the ethical and social considerations of personal dignity, economic efficiency, and employment insecurity.This edited volume fosters theoretical discourse by drawing on interdisciplinary conceptual frameworks from philosophy, ethics, economics, social work, and law. Distinguished contributors—including philosophers, bioethicists, social scientists, and legal experts—critically examine Lazear's influential theory of mandatory retirement. They also develop compelling comparisons between mandatory retirement policies and the Victorian Factory Acts and analyze how prohibiting mandatory retirement could substantially benefit workers in mainland China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR).This title is essential reading for scholars and students of practical ethics, bioethics, public policy, labour and public economics, social work, and employment law.

This book explores and elaborates three theories of public reason, drawn from Rawlsian political liberalism, natural law theory, and Confucianism. Drawing together academics from these separate approaches, the volume explores how the three theories critique each other, as well as how each one brings its theoretical arsenal to bear on the urgent contemporary debate of medical assistance in dying.  The volume is structured in two parts: an exploration of the three traditions, followed by an in-depth overview of the conceptual and historical background. In Part I, the three comprehensive opening chapters are supplemented by six dynamic chapters in dialogue with each other, each author responding to the other two traditions, and subsequently reflecting on the possible deficiencies of their own theories. The chapters in Part II cover a broad range of subjects, from an overview of the history of bioethics to the nature of autonomy and its status as a moral and political value.  In its entirety, the volume provides a vibrant and exemplary collaborative resource to scholars interested in the role of public reason and its relevance in bioethical debate.

This book explores and elaborates three theories of public reason, drawn from Rawlsian political liberalism, natural law theory, and Confucianism. Drawing together academics from these separate approaches, the volume explores how the three theories critique each other, as well as how each one brings its theoretical arsenal to bear on the urgent contemporary debate of medical assistance in dying.  The volume is structured in two parts: an exploration of the three traditions, followed by an in-depth overview of the conceptual and historical background. In Part I, the three comprehensive opening chapters are supplemented by six dynamic chapters in dialogue with each other, each author responding to the other two traditions, and subsequently reflecting on the possible deficiencies of their own theories. The chapters in Part II cover a broad range of subjects, from an overview of the history of bioethics to the nature of autonomy and its status as a moral and political value.  In its entirety, the volume provides a vibrant and exemplary collaborative resource to scholars interested in the role of public reason and its relevance in bioethical debate. 

This book explores and elaborates three theories of public reason, drawn from Rawlsian political liberalism, natural law theory, and Confucianism. Drawing together academics from these separate approaches, the volume explores how the three theories critique each other, as well as how each one brings its theoretical arsenal to bear on the urgent contemporary debate of medical assistance in dying.  The volume is structured in two parts: an exploration of the three traditions, followed by an in-depth overview of the conceptual and historical background. In Part I, the three comprehensive opening chapters are supplemented by six dynamic chapters in dialogue with each other, each author responding to the other two traditions, and subsequently reflecting on the possible deficiencies of their own theories. The chapters in Part II cover a broad range of subjects, from an overview of the history of bioethics to the nature of autonomy and its status as a moral and political value.  In its entirety, the volume provides a vibrant and exemplary collaborative resource to scholars interested in the role of public reason and its relevance in bioethical debate.

Bioethical issues are practically urgent, politically divisive, and call for resolutions. They often involve questions that are perplexing, deep, and profound. To deal with them adequately requires philosophical tools and imagination. The Lanson Lectures in Bioethics were founded upon the belief that philosophical elucidation can clarify the nature of these difficult issues, and can lead to their resolution. The present volume collects the first five lectures delivered by five preeminent moral philosophers between 2016 and 2022. In the inaugural lecture, Jonathan Glover draws a distinction between two conceptions of dignity, and brings it to bear on the issues of assisted suicide, embryo research, and genetic choices.F. M. Kamm argues that doctors are morally permitted to intentionally cause death, or assist in its being intentionally caused, when either death is imminent anyway and intentionally causing it can alone stop the pain, or ifthe patient has already decided—not unreasonably—that death is his least bad option.Are smokers who contract lung cancer entitled to state-supported healthcare? T. M. Scanlon argues that the reasons that individuals have for wanting to have the opportunity to engage in activities involving risks need to be compared with the costs society has to bear to provide healthcare for those who suffer illness or injury as a result of these activities.Rejecting Strawson’s view that a psychiatrist can only “treat” an insane patient, Victor Tadros argues that it is often right to reason with (nonresponsible) mentally ill persons because a psychiatrist needs to see things from their perspectives, and that we should communicate to nonresponsible agents that their wrongdoing is a problem for them and for their victims.Peter Singer proposes solutions to the following questions: How to distribute scarce medical resources and vaccines ethically? Whether to relax the standard for volunteers willing to participate in vaccines research? How to compare the trade-off between saving lives and saving the economy regarding lockdowns? How to prevent pandemics in future?Each lecture is followed by a critical commentary by a moral philosophers or physician in Asia. Each commentary (except the inaugural lecture) is followed by a rejoinder.

Bioethical issues are practically urgent, politically divisive, and call for resolutions. They often involve questions that are perplexing, deep, and profound. To deal with them adequately requires philosophical tools and imagination. The Lanson Lectures in Bioethics were founded upon the belief that philosophical elucidation can clarify the nature of these difficult issues, and can lead to their resolution.

The present volume collects the first five lectures delivered by five preeminent moral philosophers between 2016 and 2022. In the inaugural lecture, Jonathan Glover draws a distinction between two conceptions of dignity, and brings it to bear on the issues of assisted suicide, embryo research, and genetic choices.

F. M. Kamm argues that doctors are morally permitted to intentionally cause death, or assist in its being intentionally caused, when either death is imminent anyway and intentionally causing it can alone stop the pain, or ifthe patient has already decided—not unreasonably—that death is his least bad option.

Are smokers who contract lung cancer entitled to state-supported healthcare? T. M. Scanlon argues that the reasons that individuals have for wanting to have the opportunity to engage in activities involving risks need to be compared with the costs society has to bear to provide healthcare for those who suffer illness or injury as a result of these activities.

Rejecting Strawson’s view that a psychiatrist can only “treat” an insane patient, Victor Tadros argues that it is often right to reason with (nonresponsible) mentally ill persons because a psychiatrist needs to see things from their perspectives, and that we should communicate to nonresponsible agents that their wrongdoing is a problem for them and for their victims.

Peter Singer proposes solutions to the following questions: How to distribute scarce medical resources and vaccines ethically? Whether to relax the standard for volunteers willing to participate in vaccines research? How to compare the trade-off between saving lives and saving the economy regarding lockdowns? How to prevent pandemics in future?

Each lecture is followed by a critical commentary by a moral philosophers or physician in Asia. Each commentary (except the inaugural lecture) is followed by a rejoinder.